Is he saying we should all go back to a primitive way of life? Will he lead the way by forcing Venezuelans to revert? Will he set an example and move his family into a mud hut and eat bugs?

Venezuela is heavily dependent on petro dollars to have a healthy economy. Is he saying that Venezuela will stop producing oil to stop Global Warming? If that is true, why hasn't he already done it? I mean, Capitalism is fueled by his countries number one export, and Global Warming is a crisis, right? An oil producer like Venezuela could lead the way to a more natural way of life.

I hear a lot of talk, but I don't see Hugo leading by example.

Mad Tony

18-12-09, 01:03

Chavez is just a nut. He can take his socialism and get stuffed. He makes Obama look like Milton Friedman.

irjudd

18-12-09, 01:10

Crysis is way ahead of its time.

Draco

18-12-09, 01:32

He might be nuts, but he isn't wrong.

Drone

18-12-09, 05:46

Hugo was darn right about that. Capitalism to blame for climate crisis but same applies to socialism and any other formation. Period.

SamReeves

18-12-09, 05:59

Small words from a petty communist. When businesses are free, they can develop whatever technology they want in fuels. When they are run by the government, there ain't no innovation or drive to be better than the other guy. It's all spoon fed BS.

laralives

18-12-09, 08:08

Wow. Not to offend anyone, but when will he shut up? I understand where he is coming from, however what exactly does he want us to do?

Great. We found someone to blame. So what? Now what? He identified one of the sources, does he really think that everyone is going to stop what they're doing to listen to him?

Cows produce a huge amount of methane gas which contributes greatly to global warming. Does he want us to kill all the cows now? :/

Absurd.

Cochrane

18-12-09, 10:49

I don't know why everybody is so against him. Turn it around instead: You cannot deny that if we can get him to become a small-time, poor farmer, as communism and his understanding of climate change seem to dictate, the planet will be in a much better shape. :D

Mad Tony

18-12-09, 12:03

I really can't see how capitalism is to blame. If you believe all the climate change stuff then it's just simply man that is to blame.

http://en.rian.ru/Environment/20091217/157276621.htmlWell of course he would lol.

Johnnay

18-12-09, 13:10

Lol I think everyone should be blamed for it:)

Keir_Eidos

18-12-09, 13:12

I'll preface this post by saying I'm not capitalism's number one fan either, but if he is concerned about climate change, perhaps he should stop exporting oil (which accounts for the vast majority of Venezuela's exports).

Communist or socialist states can be polluters as well can't they? :confused:

Cochrane

18-12-09, 13:12

I do wonder whether Chavez ever looked at the climate and environmental track record of socialism in eastern europe and the Soviet Union. Rising standards of living cause climate change. It's true that capitalism pollutes more, because the standards of living under capitalism are higher than under any other system, but that also means that only capitalist countries have the money to effectively combat it.

As for the Iranian president, well, he's just mad. Or to be more precise uses a platform of stupid foreign political slogans to distract from his failures in inner politics. Either way, he'll probably blame the US for earthquakes next, so I don't think we should pay any attention to him. Of course, the same applies to Chavez.

Johnnay

18-12-09, 13:17

I'll preface this post by saying I'm not capitalism's number one fan either, but if he is concerned about climate change, perhaps he should stop exporting oil (which accounts for the vast majority of Venezuela's exports).

Communist or socialist states can be polluters as well can't they? :confused:

The same is for China, they are communist and they export coal as well

Capt. Murphy

18-12-09, 13:56

Even if the consumption of fossil fuels didn't exist - capitalism still could.

And what "crisis" is this I keep hearing about? :confused: [/sarcasm] :)

Anyone else feel like these two should just get a room? :Dhttp://www.thewashingtonnote.com/twn_up_fls/chavez_ahmadinejad.jpg

Lol, indeed. :p

Cochrane

18-12-09, 14:31

Anyone else feel like these two should just get a room? :D

It would be all right with me if they got two rooms, just as long as they're not being let out again. :D

TRhalloween

18-12-09, 14:46

Yeah, totally, all that capitalism and stuff. And all that stuff with global warming, I know what you mean.

SamReeves

18-12-09, 17:51

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/twn_up_fls/chavez_ahmadinejad.jpg

Lol, indeed. :p

Two of the biggest schmucks in the world right there. That's all you need to know.

Mad Tony

18-12-09, 17:52

Now where's Kim-Jong? Add him in there and the picture is complete.

interstellardave

18-12-09, 17:58

No-one is going to shut down their factories... not "the Evil West", or China, or Venezuela either. The solution is to do things smarter; find ways to cut down emissions... not to stop Capitalism. Developing nations are a bigger problem than the US now. Developing nations are polluting more--and they won't willingly go back to a lower standard of living, no way.

This needs to stop being a political football... it needs to become a problem for science to resolve, not social engineering.

Reggie

18-12-09, 18:02

One ideology continues to blame the other for the worlds misgivings - what's new?

Mona Sax

18-12-09, 18:18

This needs to stop being a political football... it needs to become a problem for science to resolve, not social engineering.
Well... science is but a tool - meaningless if people decide not to use it. We live in a very short-sighted economic system which values short-term profits higher than a long-term goal like a healthy environment. I fear science will not get to a point where using clean, renewable energy is more profitable than raping the planet soon enough. We have to accelerate the process, which will not be possible without sacrifice.

I don't think capitalism is necessarily to blame - greed is. It's important to note that capitalism in its current form is a system designed to reward greed and egotism, though.

Eddie Haskell

18-12-09, 18:29

Well... science is but a tool - meaningless if people decide not to use it. We live in a very short-sighted economic system which values short-term profits higher than a long-term goal like a healthy environment. I fear science will not get to a point where using clean, renewable energy is more profitable than raping the planet soon enough. We have to accelerate the process, which will not be possible without sacrifice.

I don't think capitalism is necessarily to blame - greed is. It's important to note that capitalism in its current form is a system designed to reward greed and egotism, though.

I am only posting in this thread because I see that Mona did. And she is absolutely correct with her analysis, no surprise there. However, inevitably capitalism that has had its checks and balances curtailed or eliminated will always be very bad, and we are seeing the results of this to this day. Real leadership and idealism is almost gone in government today, we need a renaissance period to restore visionaries and humanitarians to government service.

Capt. Murphy

18-12-09, 18:44

Now where's Kim-Jong? Add him in there and the picture is complete.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/349578/rainbowparty.jpg

I think Kim wants to sp... :vlol:

Mad Tony

18-12-09, 19:46

Well... science is but a tool - meaningless if people decide not to use it. We live in a very short-sighted economic system which values short-term profits higher than a long-term goal like a healthy environment. I fear science will not get to a point where using clean, renewable energy is more profitable than raping the planet soon enough. We have to accelerate the process, which will not be possible without sacrifice.

I don't think capitalism is necessarily to blame - greed is. It's important to note that capitalism in its current form is a system designed to reward greed and egotism, though.Lol, raping the planet? I hardly see how were are raping the planet. The resources on this planet are here for us to use.

I think Kim wants to sp... :vlol:AWESOME! :vlol: :tmb:

Mona Sax

18-12-09, 19:55

Lol, raping the planet? I hardly see how were are raping the planet. The resources on this planet are here for us to use.
You are but one tiny piece in a gigantic puzzle. Or, more aptly, one tiny cog in a gigantic machinery. Use the planet's resources? Sure. Use more than nature can replace? You'll just make the world a less hospitable place for yourself to live in. Earth is a dynamic ecosystem - push it too hard, and it will start pushing back. You can't separate yourself from nature.

Eddie Haskell

18-12-09, 19:58

Lol, raping the planet? I hardly see how were are raping the planet. The resources on this planet are here for us to use.

AWESOME! :vlol: :tmb:

This is why I never post in these threads.

Drone

18-12-09, 19:59

I don't think capitalism is necessarily to blame - greed is. It's important to note that capitalism in its current form is a system designed to reward greed and egotism, though.

I get yr point. Greed is in human nature, it's sad but it's true. Capitalism and greed are all the ****ing same, no matter what people do they just end up with exploiting other people and abusing resources and funds. We cannot blame science nor technology for that. Tho we can blame those who got control over science, who wants to release the things that get sold well (not those things that are needed) and who wants to promote consumerism, celebrity and etc. Apparently everyone (almost everyone) wants faster internet, fancy cars and ... y'know all those useless things. But what we have today is poor Earth and a bandwagon of those who laugh at environmentalists and praise capitalism, militarism or any other ****. I see zero democracy and a ****load of double standards.

Mad Tony

18-12-09, 20:29

This is why I never post in these threads.Because heaven forbid someone may not have the same opinion as you?

Eddie Haskell

18-12-09, 21:04

Because heaven forbid someone may not have the same opinion as you?

I don't come into a Tomb Raider forum to discuss politics and world events with everyone under the sun. I don't need the aggravation. Nothing personal.

Sgt BOMBULOUS

18-12-09, 21:06

You are but one tiny piece in a gigantic puzzle. Or, more aptly, one tiny cog in a gigantic machinery. Use the planet's resources? Sure. Use more than nature can replace? You'll just make the world a less hospitable place for yourself to live in. Earth is a dynamic ecosystem - push it too hard, and it will start pushing back. You can't separate yourself from nature.

I agree with your point about technology only catching up when we're desperate, that's always the way it's been. Just look at the technological advances that follow major wars. As to the section I've bolded, I hope you're not implying we could have ever used fossil fuels as they were replaced? We're talking about something that took millions of years to form (coal takes over 200 million years).

Ward Dragon

18-12-09, 21:12

I agree with your point about technology only catching up when we're desperate, that's always the way it's been. Just look at the technological advances that follow major wars. As to the section I've bolded, I hope you're not implying we could have ever used fossil fuels as they were replaced? We're talking about something that took millions of years to form (coal takes over 200 million years).

Right. I don't think people will develop a real alternative to fossil fuels until the fossil fuels are essentially used up. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just how things work. As long as people know there are still fossil fuels, they feel like there's a safety net and they don't really need to research alternatives. The more we try to preserve the fossil fuels, the longer we hold off the moment when we've got a real alternative. It's a catch-22: need the alternatives so we don't run out, but won't get the alternatives until we've already run out. I think in the long run things will work out, so there's no sense panicking over short-term troubles. What will be will be, and sooner or later someone will be creative enough and desperate enough to figure out a real alternative fuel source. Until then, we're just running in circles making restrictions and sacrifices to feel like we're doing something but really it has little effect overall.

Johnnay

18-12-09, 21:16

Now Chavez is demanding that Obama give back his Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284063

which i think is true i mean after he gets it more troops to Afghanistan so they can die Vietnamese Style:mad:

How about the children Obama.

Mona Sax

18-12-09, 21:18

I agree with your point about technology only catching up when we're desperate, that's always the way it's been. Just look at the technological advances that follow major wars. As to the section I've bolded, I hope you're not implying we could have ever used fossil fuels as they were replaced? We're talking about something that took millions of years to form (coal takes over 200 million years).
Which is one reason why fossil fuels are definitely not the way to go, I think. We'd never gotten as far as we did in such a short amount of time without them, but at this point we don't need to use them and deal with their disadvantages anymore. Alternative resources are still very expensive - but IMO cheaper in the long run than fossil fuels if you consider not only direct monetary aspects.

As for your argument of technological advances after wars... a question of cost vs. gain, I think. I'm not so sure any war can be justified by technological progress.

Mad Tony

18-12-09, 21:21

Now Chavez is demanding that Obama give back his Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284063

which i think is true i mean after he gets it more troops to Afghanistan so they can die Vietnamese Style:mad:

How about the children Obama.Well, he's right there. However, I wouldn't say Obama is sending people to die in Afghanistan "Vietnam style". I don't think the US has lost even a 1,000 troops in Afghanistan and they've been there for over 8 years now. The US was in Vietnam for about 15 years and they lost over 50,000 men there. Big difference.

Ward Dragon

18-12-09, 21:22

Which is one reason why fossil fuels are definitely not the way to go, I think. We'd never gotten as far as we did in such a short amount of time without them, but at this point we don't need to use them and deal with their disadvantages anymore. Alternative resources are still very expensive - but IMO cheaper in the long run than fossil fuels if you consider not only direct monetary aspects.

As for your argument of technological advances after wars... a question of cost vs. gain, I think. I'm not so sure any war can be justified by technological progress.

It's not a justification for war. It's an explanation that desperate times force people to be far more creative and resourceful than they usually are. If things start to get really bad with lack of energy, then people will be much more motivated to find a good alternative source. That's why I think we should let things play out and if the situation does get bad, it will get solved quickly. I see little point in trying to draw things out and resist the natural forces at work (in terms of the market and human nature). That only delays the time when we have the alternative energy sources that everyone wants so badly.

Drone

18-12-09, 21:24

Alternative resources are still very expensive

they are not. it's just nobody cares about Betavoltaics and Photovoltaics. They could make future brighter.

SamReeves

18-12-09, 21:43

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/349578/rainbowparty.jpg

I think Kim wants to sp... :vlol:

LOL, brilliant! :D

Sgt BOMBULOUS

18-12-09, 22:03

Right. I don't think people will develop a real alternative to fossil fuels until the fossil fuels are essentially used up. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just how things work. As long as people know there are still fossil fuels, they feel like there's a safety net and they don't really need to research alternatives. The more we try to preserve the fossil fuels, the longer we hold off the moment when we've got a real alternative. It's a catch-22: need the alternatives so we don't run out, but won't get the alternatives until we've already run out. I think in the long run things will work out, so there's no sense panicking over short-term troubles. What will be will be, and sooner or later someone will be creative enough and desperate enough to figure out a real alternative fuel source. Until then, we're just running in circles making restrictions and sacrifices to feel like we're doing something but really it has little effect overall.

The only long term alternative I can think of is the tar-sands, and it's amazing how quick people are to jump on the "it's too expensive to utilize!!" band wagon. I'll be interested to see how imaginative we get with refining technology when it's all we have left... :pi:

Solice

18-12-09, 23:35

It's true that capitalism pollutes more, because the standards of living under capitalism are higher than under any other system, but that also means that only capitalist countries have the money to effectively combat it.